Here's why we should speed up U.S. natural gas exports | TribLIVE Mobile

By John BarrassoPublished: Monday, June 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.Updated: Monday, June 17, 2013

The sluggish process for approving natural gas exports in the U.S. is affecting our economic and national security. While Russia continues to export natural gas and dominate the European market, the United States continues to slow-walk approval for natural gas exports.

Russia's control of the natural gas market and prices results in some of our allies paying exorbitant rates. Expensive energy limits their economic competitiveness and their citizens' quality of life.

The high prices Russia receives for exported energy also strengthen Russian President Vladimir Putin at home. And a stronger Putin and a dominant Russia do little to advance U.S. interests.

The United States has a rare opportunity to simultaneously help its allies, strengthen its foreign policy hand and create much-needed jobs at home — all by exporting plentiful American natural gas. The question is whether the Obama administration will allow it.

U.S. producers can export liquefied natural gas (LNG), but the process often involves years of delay by the Energy Department.

Our booming oil and gas industry has been a bright spot in the U.S. economy over the past four years, as entrepreneurs have discovered new ways to tap hidden natural gas reserves. The energy boom has created thousands of good jobs at a time when our country has desperately needed them. Even more jobs can be created by exporting LNG.

Russia continues to tighten its grip on Europe's energy market. Canada and Australia are building robust export programs with regulations that are much more streamlined than the obstacle course that Washington requires U.S. producers to navigate.

The most recent export application approved by the Energy Department, in May, took 29 months. It was the first request the department had approved in two years. A few days later, newly appointed Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz delayed indefinitely all 20 of the remaining applications awaiting department consent.

An April study for the Energy Department found that natural gas exports would be a boon for the U.S. economy. A study published last June predicted that increased exports could create 25,000 new jobs in the gas industry and 40,000 jobs along the supply chain.

Opponents of increased exports include extreme environmentalists who balk at nearly all U.S. energy development. They have joined forces with a few big businesses worried that a larger export market might raise natural gas prices in the United States. But the Energy Department study found that any price increases would be more than offset by broader economic gains.

In his second State of the Union address, Obama said that he would double U.S. exports by 2015. “If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores,” he warned.

If the president is serious about doubling our exports, his administration will follow the facts presented in the Energy Department study. If he is serious about strengthening U.S. foreign policy and helping our allies, he will act to undermine Russian dominance in global energy markets. If he is serious about creating good jobs, he will tell his energy secretary to approve the 20 remaining applications to export liquefied natural gas.

We cannot let this opportunity pass us by while Washington dithers.

John Barrasso, a Republican of Wyoming, is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Show commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments — either by the same reader or different readers.

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.